The power of III

27 November 2010

"Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced, and go out of the presence, and beyond the reach of each other; but the different parts of our country cannot do this. They cannot but remain face to face; and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory, after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws?"

Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address

Cant separate, huh?

We could have had peaceful separation and free trade, but they wanted the tariff collections at the southern ports, which constituted 70% of the revenue which fed the federal government.

He’ll [Bin-Laden] crumple fast and wonder that 19 young guys in four planes could so warp the nervous system of the world’s most powerful nation that it has empowered zealous bureaucrats to trample on the liberties for which Americans give thanks this week.

26 November 2010

"The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but “the people” then existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves. Let us see. Its language is:

“We, the people of the United States (that is, the people then existing in the United States), in order to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

It is plain, in the first place, that this language, as an agreement, purports to be only what it at most really was, viz., a contract between the people then existing; and, of necessity, binding, as a contract, only upon those then existing. In the second place, the language neither expresses nor implies that they had any right or power, to bind their “posterity” to live under it. It does not say that their “posterity” will, shall, or must live under it. It only says, in effect, that their hopes and motives in adopting it were that it might prove useful to their posterity, as well as to themselves, by promoting their union, safety, tranquility, liberty, etc."

"When such a significant figure as the Judge brings up a subject or a point of view that is never supposed to be mentioned, he strikes a blow for liberty and the first amendment, and empowers millions of other people to resist. But for the Judge, such courage is simply the path of his life."

"WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States."

"

That there be a Declaration or Bill of Rights asserting and securing from encroachment the essential and unalienable rights of the people in some such manner as the following:

1st. That there are certain natural rights of which men when they form a social compact cannot deprive or divest their posterity, among which are the enjoyment of life, and liberty, with the means of acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
2d. That all power is naturally vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates therefore are their trustees, and agents, and at all times amenable to them.
3d. That the Government ought to be instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people; and that the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive to the good and happiness of mankind."

(emphasis added)

--from the State of Virginia's ratification of the US Constitution, June 26, 1788

Does it sound like the delegates from Virginia (New York's language was nearly identical) thought about the Union was insoluable in perpetuity?

Does it sound like the Virginia delegates understood and assumed that the Federal government is supreme, creating one nation, and each state is only a subservient cog in a larger machine?

Secession is an absolute right, otherwise, the "freedom" of which we Americans have been speaking for 230 years is just hogwash.

----------------------------------

Look how modern "historians," great great grandchildren of the victors of the War Between the states discuss the Constitutionality of Secession in one of the mouthpieces of the State, the Washington Post.

Truth conveniently forgotten.

---------------------------------

"Most of the top military commanders in the war (on both sides) were educated at West Point, where the one course on the U.S. Constitution was taught by the Philadelphia abolitionist William Rawle, who taught from his own book,A View of the Constitution.What Ulysses S. Grant, Robert E. Lee, and others were taught about secession at West Point was that to deny a state the right of secession 'would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.' "(emphasis added)--Thomas DiLorenzo, Secession and Liberty, Lew Rockwell archives

25 November 2010

"The Washington Elites believe We the People aren’t capable of, nor worthy of, self-government. They despise us Southerners in particular. But the landmark Third Congress proves them wrong. The SNC has demonstrated a far greater capacity for moral, responsible self-government than anything we see in the U.S. Congress. If the corrupt and criminal elites in Washington could be here with you today, they would have to hang their heads in shame.”

"To pass through the fire at six o'clock this evening, in honour to the immortal goddess of Liberty, the late infamous Act of the British Parliament for farther distressing the American Colonies; the place of execution will be the public parade, where all Sons of Liberty are desired to attend.

Accordingly, a very numerous and respectable body were assembled of near one thousand people, when a huge pole, just forty-five feet high was erected, and consecrated to the shrine of liberty; after which the Act of Parliament for blocking up the Boston harbour was read aloud; sentenced to the flames, and executed by the hands of the common hangman; then the following resolves were passed, nem. con.: "

1st. That it is the greatest dignity, interest, and happiness of every American to be united with our parent state, while our liberties are duly secured, maintained, and supported by our rightful sovereign, whose person we greatly revere; whose government while duly administered, we are ready with our lives and properties to support:

2d. That the present ministry, being instigated by the devil, and led on by their wicked and corrupt hearts, have a design to take away our liberties and properties, and to enslave us forever.

3d. That the late Act which their malice hath caused to be passed in Parliament, for blocking up the port of Boston, is unjust, illegal, and oppressive; and that we, and every American, are sharers in the insults offered to the town of Boston.

4th. That those pimps and parasites who dared to advise their master to such detestable measures be held in utter abhorrence by us and every American, and their names loaded with the curses of all succeeding generations.

5th. That we scorn the chains of slavery; we despise every attempt to rivet them upon us; we are the sons of freedom, and resolved, that, till time shall be no more, that god-like virtue shall blazon our hemisphere.

at the raising of the Liberty Pole in Farmington, CT, May 1774 in reaction to the Intolerable Acts

Not since the New Deal has Austrian economics enjoyed the political popularity it does now. Austrian economists are awfully popular with the Republican Party, especially its Tea Party wing. Peter Schiff, the Austrian economics-inflected investment advisor, is a very popular guest on business television. Tom Woods' book “Meltdown”—which provided an Austrian economics explanation for the financial crisis—was a best seller. Congressman Ron Paul and Senator-elect Rand Paul are both devotees."

Nice essay on CNBC about Austrian Economics. Worthwhile summary at an unexpected source.

24 November 2010

"If [the Declaration of Independence] justifies the secession from the British empire of 3,000,000 of colonists in 1776, we do not see why it would not justify the secession of 5,000,000 of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861. "

"They want their citizens to buy gold and silver, they want their citizens to own REAL money. They know gold and silver are going higher, they know it's a sure-thing because they are planning on dumping the dollar. The U.S. Government is telling its citizens to put faith and trust in little bits of paper that we're printing". --Peter Schiff, September 2009

"If any should say, it is in vain for them as individuals to be vigilant, zealous and firm in pursuing any measures for the security of our rights, unless all would unite: I would reply

Ages are composed of seconds, the earth of sands, and the sea of drops, too small to be seen by the naked eye.

The smallest particles have their influence.

Such is our state, that each individual has a proportion of influence on some neighbour at least; he, on another, and so on; as in a river, the following drop urges that which is before, and every one through the whole length of the stream has the like influence.

We know not, what individuals may do. We are not at liberty to lie dormant until we can, at once, influence the whole. We must begin with the weight we have. Should the little springs neglect to flow till a general agreement should take place, the torrent that now bears down all before it, would never be formed. These mighty floods have their rise in single drops from the rocks, which, uniting, creep along till they meet with another combination so small that it might be absorbed by the travellers foot. These unite, proceed, enlarge, till mountains tremble at their sound. Let us receive instruction from the streams, and, without discouragment, pursue a laudable plan."

--Nathaniel Niles, Sermon at the North Church in Newburyport on June 5, 1774, only a few weeks after the British closed the port of Boston.(emphasis added)

23 November 2010

"I saw in States’ rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy…. Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization, and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo. "

"I speak often now of conflict, of being pushed too far, of retaliation, of standing for principle. This is not who I am, this is not what I want. But, it has been a long time since I got what I wanted, which was to be left alone to sit on a bridge and watch the water push thickly over boulders and crash into foam on the other side. I want to raise my children in the tradition in which I was raised, one of minding one's own business and doing to others as I would have done to me."

21 November 2010

"The diversity of mankind is a basic postulate of our knowledge of human beings. But if mankind is diverse and individuated, then how can anyone propose equality as an ideal? Every year, scholars hold Conferences on Equality and call for greater equality, and no one challenges the basic tenet. But what justification can equality find in the nature of man? If each individual is unique, how else can he be made 'equal' to others than by destroying most of what is human in him and reducing human society to the mindless uniformity of the ant heap?"

-Murray N. Rothbard

Equality of Natural Law: Each has his right to his life, property, and personal freedom. This is a fact regardless of the government or set of laws under which the person lives. This Natural Law is the basis of the founding of the American Republic.

Equality of the Progressive: law passed so that incompetent or less competent individuals can suddenly compete with a person of greater competence and merit. Moochers and looters gain advantage over producers. This is one of the effects of socialism and legislated social policy.

15 minutes at any playground, gymnasium, or social gathering will tell you that one person is not "equal" to the one standing next to him. The result of each of our individual Nature and Nurture (genetics and environment in which we were raised) leads to inequality. I refer to the inequality of physical, mental, and social competence. This is logically apparent to anyone who thinks about it.

...and this...

Lets pass a law against this...

Socialism leads to equality...

The use of the word "equality" in the public or political sense can (i.e. should) only mean one thing:One citizen is equal to another citizen in the eyes of the court with regard to their Natural Right to life, personal freedom, and property.

When you read the article, you will see that the poor woman had an anxiety condition to begin with, and that effects the severity of her experience; on the other hand, this approaches the level of Intolerable Act, a casus belli. What will you tolerate?

The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals.

No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom.

Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave.

And there is no difference, in principle --- but only in degree --- between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure.

About Me

Father of three, religious, distrustful of any authority not able to consistently demonstrate competency at its mandated task. Lineally descended physically and spiritually from colonial leadership, Revolutionary War veterans, and veterans of the War of Northern Aggression.